LiberalConservative: Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia). This may vary elsewhere due to minimum wage rates and size of welfare payments. Is a balance i guess. If corporations are not paying enough to provide incentive to work I would expect government to impose increases to minimum wage; its in their best interest to do so since reducing welfare claims helps government budgets.

Here in the People's Republic of San Francisco, minimum wage is $10.55; California UI benefits max out at $450/wk. Do the math.

We also found over the last five years of generational-high unemployment that employers aren't eager to hire former cubicle rats to sling fries for minimum wage. "Suitable work" cuts both ways.

We're almost at a point in the First World where work as we know it simply isn't a reasonable expectation for most of the adult population. If I don't live to see it, most of you reading this will.

Yeah, then sounds like the minimum wage to UI benefits is out of balance. Fix it. If not personally, then vote in fically responsible governments that will rebalance rather than increase handouts. My previous suggestion would also help. Requiring longterm unemployed to perform community or volunteer work to receive welfare is a good way to ensure they are contributing to society in exchange for their tax-funded welfare benefits. Unemployed people who want to work will do this willingly anyhow and the welfare cheats who desire to do nothing will be foiled. This approach will also slow down or prevent your prediction or "work as we know it... isnt a reasonable expectation for most of the adult population". We are no where near that yet by the way; last time I checked unemployment in America is not yet approaching 50% (is 7.8% as of December 2012). There is time to rebalance, but voters have to want reform more than they want more money for the poor poor people.

LostGuy:LiberalConservative: LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.

That's just... strange. If someone earns enough from investments to support themselves they are not a burden on welfare and those that pay taxes, so there is no problem here.You just want to punish rich people for the sake of it? Most older rich people often do volunteer work on their own volition anyhow, its boring to do nothing.

People who live off of investments are still living off others while performing no useful labor themselves. Most working people are paying part of their income to tax and part to interest. You end up with pretty much the same thing. Except occasionally the welfare recipients improve their lot and start working. A rich parasite is a parasite forever. If you don't see how the idle rich are moochers just as the idle poor, the whole reality of economics will forever be hidden from you.

Wow, you seem to hate rich people so much you just make up stuff? Just wow. "The reality of economics will forever be hidden from you"... pretty special from someone who doesnt seem to understand: 1) People who live off investments are not parasiting. Those investments are taxed which means that the rich person is actually contributing to the country. Therefore they are not mooching as you seem to think. Additionally most people who live off investments also do other unpaid work because it is boring to do nothing. 2) Welfare recipients who are not working (or volunteering) are the ones not contributin to the country. They are a net drain on a country, or in your words "a parasite". Lumping those two into the same parasite/moocher basket is just stupid (and perhaps self-delusional).To prevent welfare recipients being a "parasite" they could be required to perform volunteer/community work in order to receive their payments. That way they are contributing and may build skills and experience that will help them get off of welfare payments.

Clash City Farker:wtom - there is plenty of fresh water to go around. This planet's surface is 70% water.

Yes - but the key is going to be who has access to it, and who doesn't - that is what will start the water wars. Will the average american donate a few hundred bucks each to pay for desalinization plants for north africa?

LiberalConservative:LostGuy: LiberalConservative: LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.

That's just... strange. If someone earns enough from investments to support themselves they are not a burden on welfare and those that pay taxes, so there is no problem here.You just want to punish rich people for the sake of it? Most older rich people often do volunteer work on their own volition anyhow, its boring to do nothing.

People who live off of investments are still living off others while performing no useful labor themselves. Most working people are paying part of their income to tax and part to interest. You end up with pretty much the same thing. Except occasionally the welfare recipients improve their lot and start working. A rich parasite is a parasite forever. If you don't see how the idle rich are moochers just as the idle poor, the whole reality of economics will forever be hidden from you.

Wow, you seem to hate rich people so much you just make up stuff? Just wow. "The reality of economics will forever be hidden from you"... pretty special from someone who doesnt seem to understand: 1) People who live off investments are not parasiting. Those investments are taxed which means that the rich person is actually contributing to the country. Therefore they are not mooching as you seem to think. Additionally most people who live off investments also do other unpaid work because it is boring to do nothing. 2 ...

I don't hate the rich. There just playing the hand they're dealt. To me, a parasite is someone who gains wealth without work whether they pay tax or not. After all, that tax they are paying is just part of the money they're extracting from working people. Let me give you a small island hypothetical and see if it makes things clear. Let's say my granddad takes an AK-47 and clears off a small tropical island of all it's natives, making it his island. Then he passes that island down to me. Then some industrious fellow Bob comes along and decides my Island will be perfect for his pineapple plantation. I say, "Fine Bob, but it's my island so I get half of your income." So Bob works hard all day out in the fields and I build a nice house using half of his money and watch old Star Treks all day. One day, I'm out walking around the island when I see one of the natives my grandfather must have missed. Not being a fighter like my grandfather, I decide not to kill the native and give him some of my extra stuff so he doesn't want to kill me. So now Bob, the native, and I are all living off of Bob's hard work. I'm rich, the native is still pretty poor, Bob ain't doing bad either but he earned it. Aren't I the biggest moocher in this story? I mean the native is mooching off Bob too, but not as much as I am. Does my grandfather's AK massacre really give me the right to half Bob's stuff?

Oh and BTW, there are plenty of folks on food stamps doing volunteer work. If you think being rich and unemployed is boring, try being poor and unemployed and without kids. You'll do anything to get out of the house.

And once you hand a beggar $5 "to buy food because I'm starving", it becomes his money, and you can't get mad if he rushes off to the liquor store to get a bottle of hooch? Bullshiat. The money was given for one specific purpose, and then used for completely different one.

Look at it this way- If a company charges you for "tax" and then doesn't actually use that to pay the government, then it is FRAUD.

LiberalConservative:1) People who live off investments are not parasiting. Those investments are taxed which means that the rich person is actually contributing to the country. Therefore they are not mooching as you seem to think.

Not to mention hat those investments are invested in... something. Something useful is being done with that money.

LostGuy:Let's say my granddad takes an AK-47 and clears off a small tropical island of all it's natives, making it his island. Then he passes that island down to me. Then some industrious fellow Bob comes along and decides my Island will be perfect for his pineapple plantation. I say, "Fine Bob, but it's my island so I get half of your income." So Bob works hard all day out in the fields and I build a nice house using half of his money and watch old Star Treks all day. One day, I'm out walking around the island when I see one of the natives my grandfather must have missed. Not being a fighter like my grandfather, I decide not to kill the native and give him some of my extra stuff so he doesn't want to kill me. So now Bob, the native, and I are all living off of Bob's hard work. I'm rich, the native is still pretty poor, Bob ain't doing bad either but he earned it. Aren't I the biggest moocher in this story?

Um, you're not a moocher at all- you are renting your island to Bob, in exchange for half his profits. How is that "mooching"? I mean, maybe the rate you are charging is a little high (or too low), but that's between you and Bob, and none of my concern.

fredklein:Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: You do realize that it stops being your money once you give it to the government, right?

And once you hand a beggar $5 "to buy food because I'm starving", it becomes his money, and you can't get mad if he rushes off to the liquor store to get a bottle of hooch? Bullshiat. The money was given for one specific purpose, and then used for completely different one.

Look at it this way- If a company charges you for "tax" and then doesn't actually use that to pay the government, then it is FRAUD.

It's only fraud if they fail to pay the government entirely. It's not fraud if they take your money that they charged for "tax", then use money they got somewhere else to pay their taxes. Like it or not, money stops being yours when you give it to someone else and you don't get to decide what other people are allowed to spend their money on.

But I can tell that you feel pretty strongly about this, so I will make you a deal. You get to try and control how other people spend the money you've given them as long as anyone who gives you money gets to tell you what to do with it. Be sure to let your employer's payroll department know that you'll be submitting your monthly budget to them for approval.

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat:It's only fraud if they fail to pay the government entirely. It's not fraud if they take your money that they charged for "tax", then use money they got somewhere else to pay their taxes.

Yes, Money is fungible. The point is, if they charge me $.10 in "tax", they better pay the government $.10, else it's fraud.

Like it or not, money stops being yours when you give it to someone else and you don't get to decide what other people are allowed to spend their money on.

But I can (or should) be able to decide IF I GIVE THEM ANY MONEY to begin with. And if they mis-use the money I give them, then I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE.

But I can tell that you feel pretty strongly about this, so I will make you a deal. You get to try and control how other people spend the money you've given them as long as anyone who gives you money gets to tell you what to do with it. Be sure to let your employer's payroll department know that you'll be submitting your monthly budget to them for approval.

Ohh, so close. They don't "give" me money- I EARN the money. Unlike those on the dole.

fredklein:Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: It's only fraud if they fail to pay the government entirely. It's not fraud if they take your money that they charged for "tax", then use money they got somewhere else to pay their taxes.

Yes, Money is fungible. The point is, if they charge me $.10 in "tax", they better pay the government $.10, else it's fraud.

Like it or not, money stops being yours when you give it to someone else and you don't get to decide what other people are allowed to spend their money on.

But I can (or should) be able to decide IF I GIVE THEM ANY MONEY to begin with. And if they mis-use the money I give them, then I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE.

But I can tell that you feel pretty strongly about this, so I will make you a deal. You get to try and control how other people spend the money you've given them as long as anyone who gives you money gets to tell you what to do with it. Be sure to let your employer's payroll department know that you'll be submitting your monthly budget to them for approval.

Ohh, so close. They don't "give" me money- I EARN the money. Unlike those on the dole.

That's entirely irrelevant to the fact that your money stops being your money once it's transferred to someone else. If you want to play the victim and be a whiny biatch for the rest of your life, that's your prerogative, but don't expect the rest of us to listen to you blubbering about what other people are doing with "your" money. It's not your money anymore, so shut the fark up about it.

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat:That's entirely irrelevant to the fact that your money stops being your money once it's transferred to someone else. If you want to play the victim and be a whiny biatch for the rest of your life, that's your prerogative, but don't expect the rest of us to listen to you blubbering about what other people are doing with "your" money. It's not your money anymore, so shut the fark up about it.

Not that guy, but:Er... no. That tax money I am paying goes to the government which serves me, the voter. As a voter, what government does with my tax payments IS my damn business. If my government takes my taxes and gives a portion of it to unemployed people that have no intention of seeking employment... I have every right to complain/biatch/whine/blubber, and ask for changes to that system.

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat:That's entirely irrelevant to the fact that your money stops being your money once it's transferred to someone else.

Yes, it does. However, I should have the choice to give it or not. If the person I give it to is mis-using it, I should be able to stop giving them money.

If you want to play the victim and be a whiny biatch for the rest of your life, that's your prerogative, but don't expect the rest of us to listen to you blubbering about what other people are doing with "your" money. It's not your money anymore, so shut the fark up about it.

Someone runs up to you, yanks your wallet of of your pocket, and tosses the cash in it up in the air. A bunch of homeless people grab the bills as they flutter to the ground. You say:

LiberalConservative:Requiring longterm unemployed to perform community or volunteer work to receive welfare is a good way to ensure they are contributing to society in exchange for their tax-funded welfare benefits.

One other thing I forgot to mention: In America, unemployment compensation is taxable as ordinary income. So maybe they're already contributing, hmmmm?

Interestingly, I saw in the morning's news that almost half of Americans with college degrees are in jobs for which they're overqualified. USAT via Detroit Free Press Meanwhile, we keep pushing kids to get college degrees, despite the strong likelihood that they'll never be able to get the jobs for which they educated themselves -- often at great expense.

The fact is that even after the Boomers die off in another 20-30years, we're going to have a hard time finding enough work for everyone who wants it. Putting people to work painting courthouses with toothbrushes isn't going to teach them the dignity of accomplishment, or the joy of earning their own way. It's just punitive, vicious and mean-spirited.

I would love to see a study done in regard to that whole thing that compared volunteering of time in addition to monetary donations. I have a sneaking suspicion that you'd find that liberals are more likely to donate their time and effort to charitable causes than conservatives are.

In what way? It's a dual-positive assertion. There's nothing partisan about it. It's basically an observation at how the two political ideologies look at fairness, how one almost looks at it from an optimist perspective and the other from a pessimist perspective. Neither is more correct than the other. They're too perspectives of the same issue.

Your assertion, on the other hand, was unsubstantiated horseshiat that saw fit to champion Conservative ideology over Liberal ideology. It's partisan hackery and wrong.

Lsherm:If it were true, then conservatives wouldn't give more to charity than liberals.

First of all, I don't think that's even true. You're going to have to provide a citation. Secondly, I didn't say anything about charity.

I said Conservatives just really don't like it when someone, somewhere, gets something for free, and that's true. No one else complains about entitlements, benefits, handouts and welfare more than them.

stiletto_the_wise:fredklein: Sergeant Grumbles: Seriously, owning something you could buy on a month's pay at a minimum wage job is not luxury.

Then I demand you buy me a 50" tv. After all, according to you , it's a necessity, and I don't currently have one.

Oh, and a (cheap) car.

Oh, and pay my rent.

Oh, and buy all my food- light on the veggies, heavy on the steak and lobster, okay?

You can't say no- all these things are necessities, not luxuries, Right?

Then go on benefits (or Welfare in the US) if you think it's so great! Do it! Live the life of luxury you're so tired of paying for others to live!

I live in low-income rent controlled housing, and I am one of the few in the entire building who works. The rest have been on the dole for years if not decades. They have cars, TVs, smokes, and more cash floating through their fingers than they have any right to, and more than I have ever had running through mine. While I could go on the dole as much as they do, as I have various issues which could put me on SSDI and other programs, I choose to work for my bread. I have my father to thank for that, as he and my mother worked every day for the last 40 years to provide for their children. Their work ethic is what I aspire to, and what is also causing me to go back to school with 2 jobs, so as to create a lasting solution to my own personal finance problem.

Trance354:stiletto_the_wise: fredklein: Sergeant Grumbles: Seriously, owning something you could buy on a month's pay at a minimum wage job is not luxury.

Then I demand you buy me a 50" tv. After all, according to you , it's a necessity, and I don't currently have one.

Oh, and a (cheap) car.

Oh, and pay my rent.

Oh, and buy all my food- light on the veggies, heavy on the steak and lobster, okay?

You can't say no- all these things are necessities, not luxuries, Right?

Then go on benefits (or Welfare in the US) if you think it's so great! Do it! Live the life of luxury you're so tired of paying for others to live!

I live in low-income rent controlled housing, and I am one of the few in the entire building who works. The rest have been on the dole for years if not decades. They have cars, TVs, smokes, and more cash floating through their fingers than they have any right to, and more than I have ever had running through mine. While I could go on the dole as much as they do, as I have various issues which could put me on SSDI and other programs, I choose to work for my bread. I have my father to thank for that, as he and my mother worked every day for the last 40 years to provide for their children. Their work ethic is what I aspire to, and what is also causing me to go back to school with 2 jobs, so as to create a lasting solution to my own personal finance problem.

Teufelaffe:Lsherm: conservatives wouldn't give more to charity than liberals.

I would love to see a study done in regard to that whole thing that compared volunteering of time in addition to monetary donations. I have a sneaking suspicion that you'd find that liberals are more likely to donate their time and effort to charitable causes than conservatives are.

Libs are just more likely to lie and claim they give. Liberals just want to look morally superior, so that they have a stronger debating position to demand what they want, for themselves. Their sense of self-interest actually exceeds the boundary of honesty.

Ishkur:Lsherm: Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.

Liberals always cheerlead a system that lets you take.Conservatives always cheerlead a system that lets you earn.

Yeah, see, the difference between my statement and your statement is mine was non-partisan and true while yours was partisan douchebaggery and false.

I don't think yours was non-partisan. It contains a semi-hidden pop at conservatives (due to the common assumption that it is never unfair to reward the innocent). And you're wasting your time with this whole "my leftist argument is really the centre ground so you have to agree with it" rubbish. Take a position, argue from it, or go away.

THE GREAT NAME:I don't think yours was non-partisan. It contains a semi-hidden pop at conservatives (due to the common assumption that it is never unfair to reward the innocent). And you're wasting your time with this whole "my leftist argument is really the centre ground so you have to agree with it" rubbish. Take a position, argue from it, or go away.

I'm Canadian. We can't help but argue both sides against each other or else it's considered rude.

THE GREAT NAME:Teufelaffe: Lsherm: conservatives wouldn't give more to charity than liberals.

I would love to see a study done in regard to that whole thing that compared volunteering of time in addition to monetary donations. I have a sneaking suspicion that you'd find that liberals are more likely to donate their time and effort to charitable causes than conservatives are.

Libs are just more likely to lie and claim they give. Liberals just want to look morally superior, so that they have a stronger debating position to demand what they want, for themselves. Their sense of self-interest actually exceeds the boundary of honesty.

Yay, I get to dust this off again...

Liberals learn about conservatives by watching what they do and say.Conservatives learn about liberals by listening to what other conservatives tell them about liberals.

You should try thinking for yourself sometime. You'd be amazed at how different the world looks when you're not seeing it through a lens of what other people want you to believe.

Teufelaffe:THE GREAT NAME: Teufelaffe: Lsherm: conservatives wouldn't give more to charity than liberals.

I would love to see a study done in regard to that whole thing that compared volunteering of time in addition to monetary donations. I have a sneaking suspicion that you'd find that liberals are more likely to donate their time and effort to charitable causes than conservatives are.

Libs are just more likely to lie and claim they give. Liberals just want to look morally superior, so that they have a stronger debating position to demand what they want, for themselves. Their sense of self-interest actually exceeds the boundary of honesty.

Yay, I get to dust this off again...

Liberals learn about conservatives by watching what they do and say.Conservatives learn about liberals by listening to what other conservatives tell them about liberals.

You should try thinking for yourself sometime. You'd be amazed at how different the world looks when you're not seeing it through a lens of what other people want you to believe.

You're semi-right.Liberals learn about conservatives from the superficial sense of "niceness" in what they say.Conservatives do not believe the "niceness" in what liberals say until they have considered it in the context of reality.

THE GREAT NAME:Liberals learn about conservatives from the superficial sense of "niceness" in what they say.Conservatives do not believe the "niceness" in what liberals say until they have considered it in the context of reality.

Rebuttals work better when they make sense. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.